Cardinale v. Knapp

Decision Date18 June 2015
Docket NumberA141412
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals
PartiesNOREEN CARDINALE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KEITH CHARLES KNAPP et al., Defendant and Appellant.

NOREEN CARDINALE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
KEITH CHARLES KNAPP et al., Defendant and Appellant.

A141412

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

June 18, 2015


(Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. C0800657)

The caption of the opinion in the above-reference appeal, filed on June 18, 2015, is modified as follows: Delete Solano County Super. Ct. No. FCR302185, and replace it with Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. C0800657.

/s/_________
Pollak, Acting P.J.

Page 2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Solano County Super. Ct. No. FCR302185)

This appeal is the latest in a series of attempts by Keith Knapp to evade plaintiff and appellant Noreen Cardinale's efforts to collect on her 2011 fraud judgment against Knapp and his company, Home Loan Service Corporation (CHL). (See Cardinale v. Miller (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1020.) This time around, Knapp challenges a superior court order rejecting his claim that his California Home Loans Profit Sharing Plan (the Plan) is an ERISA qualified retirement plan that is exempt from execution and attachment. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

We adopt the superior court's accurate and succinct summary of the pertinent facts and expression of the rationale for its decision. "Briefly stated, the events leading to this hearing are that Plaintiff Noreen Cardinale (judgment creditor) obtained a jury verdict against [Knapp] and [CHL] in May 2011. In her efforts to collect the subsequent judgment on verdict, she levied against funds on deposit in First Republic Bank. Defendant/judgment debtor, as first party beneficiary and trustee of the California Home

Page 3

Loans Profit Sharing Plan, claimed exemption and has objected by way of many legal motions in this Court and the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, and taken the position that those funds are/were exempt from levy execution by Plaintiff/judgment creditor because they belong to the California Home Loans Profit Sharing Plan, an ERISA[1] plan which existed prior to the judgment. Therefore, the issues addressed by this court are whether the First Republic Bank funds at issue are exempt because they belong to a legitimate ERISA 'employee benefit plan,' and whether or not the funds were fraudulently transferred."

The court found that Knapp failed to prove his exemption claim. To the contrary, "[t]he weight of the evidence is that he did nothing to establish by his actions or any documentation that an ERISA employee benefit plan had been set up, until after judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff/judgment creditor and documents were retroactively created. In fact, his actions and those documents which were filed previously and those prepared and filed retroactively establish the contrary. Until then, all documents had been filed by Mr. Knapp under oath as a single...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT